Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183

Section 4-183(j) requires the reviewing court to uphold an agency’s factual findings when substantial evidence in the record supports them.

Young v. New Haven Board of Education, No. Cv 98 040782 S (Jan. 15, 1998) · filed 1998-01-15(j)

The court finds that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the board's adoption of the said additional findings of the dissenting panel member.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) applies the substantial evidence rule to judicial review of agency fact-finding.

Board of Educ. v. State Elections Enforc., No. Cv97-0569705 (Feb. 3, 1998) · filed 1998-02-03(j)(5) and (6)

The plaintiffs' challenges to the evidentiary basis of the Commission's ruling is measured by the substantial evidence rule. ... The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). ... The court's review of the record reveals insufficient evidence to support the Commission's order with respect to the plaintiff Dagostino.

Section 4-183 limits review of agency factfinding to whether substantial evidence in the record supports the findings.

Swiller v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam., No. Cv97 0573367 (Oct. 2, 1997) · filed 1997-10-02(j)(5) and (6)

"The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. ... Plaintiff has not met the burden of establishing his likelihood of success on the merits.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) applies the substantial evidence standard to judicial review of agency fact findings.

Merola v. Commission on Human Rights, No. Nnh Cv96-0394115 (Dec. 15, 1997) · filed 1997-12-15(j)(5) and (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6). ... The record contains the following evidence which supports the conclusion that plaintiff was not an employee of MAS: Plaintiff on occasion worked at her home. (R. p. 130.) ... The appeal is dismissed.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency fact findings under the substantial evidence rule.

Connecticut Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Foic, No. Cv96-0565901 (Aug. 25, 1997) · filed 1997-08-25(j)

The limited scope of the court's review, especially as to the substantial evidence rule, requires that the court accept the agency findings as to a lack of promptness and illegibility constituting violations of § 1-19a and § 1-15a.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) applies the substantial evidence standard to judicial review of administrative fact findings.

Snidack v. Salinas, No. Cv97-0571362-S (Sep. 25, 1997) · filed 1997-09-25(j)(5) and (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) requires courts reviewing administrative fact-finding to apply the substantial evidence rule.

Galka v. Salinas, No. Cv97 0572934 (Oct. 15, 1997) · filed 1997-10-15(j)(5) and (6)

"The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6).

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) applies the substantial evidence standard to judicial review of administrative factfinding.

McDonald v. Conn. Comm'n on Human Rights, No. Cv97 0567160 (Nov. 19, 1997) · filed 1997-11-19(j)(5) and (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6). ... The record contains substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the substantial proof of a valid non-discriminatory reason for the termination precluded the reasonable possibility that further investigation would result in a probable cause finding.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) applies the substantial evidence standard when a court reviews an agency’s factual findings.

Shea v. Salinas, No. Cv97 0573649 (Dec. 1, 1997) · filed 1997-12-01(j)(5) and (6)

The probable cause issue is resolved by application of the substantial evidence standard of review. ... Substantial evidence therefore exists to support the probable cause determination.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) applies the substantial evidence rule to judicial review of administrative fact-finding.

Local 2663, Council 4 v. Csblr, No. Cv97-0568932 (Feb. 19, 1998) · filed 1998-02-19(j)(5) and (6)

The plaintiff's remaining argument is governed by the substantial evidence rule. ... "The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6).

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) requires courts reviewing administrative findings to apply the substantial evidence standard, under which a finding is supported if the record provides a substantial factual basis for it.

Swiller v. St. Bd. of Chiropractic Exam., No. Cv97 0573367 (Feb. 19, 1998) · filed 1998-02-19(j)(5) and (6)

"The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing evidence and requires it to affirm an agency decision when substantial evidence supports the findings.

Beizer v. State Department of Labor, No. Cv97-0569653 (Mar. 9, 1998) · filed 1998-03-09(j)

A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." ... These evidentiary challenges are controlled by the substantial evidence rule.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to uphold an agency decision when substantial evidence supports it and the appellant does not establish grounds for reversal.

Carr v. Comm. on Human Rights Opp., No. 32 65 18 (Apr. 2, 1998) · filed 1998-04-02(j)

In light of the substantial evidence in the record, the CHRO's investigation met the standards required by General Statutes § 46a-83 , and Carr's appeal from the findings of the CHRO did not meet the standards required by General Statutes § 4-183 (j) to sustain the appeal.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) requires substantial evidence review of administrative fact-finding; a finding may stand when the record reasonably supports it.

Csea v. Town of East Hartford, No. Cv96 0560315 (Apr. 13, 1998) · filed 1998-04-13(j)(5) and (6)

The plaintiff's evidentiary challenge is measured by the "substantial evidence" rule. ... The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). ... The labor board's construction of the facts is not the only one possible, but is certainly one which is supported by substantial evidence in the record (Full Stipulation of Facts).

Section 4-183(j) requires courts reviewing agency factfinding to apply the substantial evidence standard.

Bancroft v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 1998-04-14(j)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative [fact-finding] under General Statutes [§ 4-183 (j)].

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) requires courts to review agency factual findings for substantial evidence in the record.

Waterbury Firefighters v. St. Bd. of L. Rel., No. Cv97 0570953 (May 6, 1998) · filed 1998-05-06(j)(5) and (6)

The review of the Labor Board's factual findings is governed by the substantial evidence rule. ... "The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). ... The Labor Board's conclusion that the union bylaws mandate that a two thirds vote of a quorum of the executive committee give prior approval is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to affirm an agency decision unless a specified error prejudiced the appellant’s substantial rights, including findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Mystic Tr. Serv. v. State, Ct. Dept., Ins., No. Cv97-0571951 (May 27, 1998) · filed 1998-05-27(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) in part provides: The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: ... (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. ... The court has reviewed the documents and transcripts in the record and finds evidence to support the department's decision.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court reviewing agency fact finding to defer to the agency's credibility determinations and uphold findings supported by substantial evidence.

Assessor v. Foic, No. Cv97 0113250 (Jun. 2, 1998) · filed 1998-06-02(j)

The court, as it is obligated to do, defers to the agency's assessment of credibility of witnesses and right to believe or disbelieve the evidence presented by any witness. ... The determination that the requested fee was excessive is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 4-183(j)(5) does not permit a court to overturn an agency decision based on a factual claim unsupported by the record.

Bell Atl. Nynex Mob. v. Dept., Pub. Ut. Ctr., No. Cv970572450 (Jul. 8, 1998) · filed 1998-07-08(j)(5)

There is no evidence in the record to support these claims, and the court will not overturn the DPUC on this basis. See General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5).

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) governs substantial evidence review of agency fact finding; a finding is supported when the record provides a substantial factual basis for a reasonable inference.

Center Automotive, Inc. v. Com. of M v. No. Cv97 0568227 (Jul. 21, 1998) · filed 1998-07-21(j)(5) and (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.

Section 4-183(j)(5) requires a reviewing court to assess whether an agency decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

AFSCME, Council 4, Local 287 v. State Board of Labor Relations · filed 1998-07-28(j)(5)

The union’s first claim is that the trial court improperly held that the board’s conclusion that the union had repudiated the contract was not clearly erroneous in light of the substantial evidence in the record. See General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5). We disagree. ... There is substantial evidence in the record before us to conclude that the trial court’s dismissal of the union’s appeal from the board’s decision was proper.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) apply the substantial evidence rule to judicial review of administrative fact-finding.

Maldonado v. State, Dss, No. Fbt Cv95-0322762 (Aug. 4, 1998) · filed 1998-08-04(j)(5) and (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.

Section 4-183(j)(5) bars courts from reweighing agency fact findings and requires them to sustain findings reasonably supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.

Office of Consumer Counsel v. Department of Public Utility Control · filed 1998-08-04(j)(5)

An agency’s factual determination must be sustained if it is reasonably supported by substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole. ... We conclude that the plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of proving that the record is devoid of substantial evidence to support the department’s factual determination that the power company’s approved energy adjustment clause will provide more ratepayer protection than its former fossil fuel adjustment clause and generation utilization adjustment clause.

Section 4-183(j) requires the reviewing court to determine whether substantial evidence in the record supports an agency decision.

Wallace v. Comm. on Human Rts. Opp., No. Cv97 0403722 (Aug. 12, 1998) · filed 1998-08-12(j)

Nevertheless, under General Statutes § 4-183 , this court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the CHRO's determination that there is no reasonable possibility that an investigation will result in a finding of reasonable cause.

Section 4-183(j) permits reversal of an agency decision when substantial rights have been prejudiced by findings clearly erroneous in light of the evidence on the whole record.

Hanes v. Bridgeport Board of Education, No. Cv95 32 88 50 S (Sep. 4, 1998) · filed 1998-09-04(j)

"General Statutes § 4-183 (j) . . . permits modification or reversal of an agency's decision if substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are: (1) [i]n violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion."

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) applies the substantial evidence rule to judicial review of administrative fact finding.

Miller Brewing v. Dept. of Consumer Prot., No. Cv97 0572796 (Sep. 10, 1998) · filed 1998-09-10(j)(5) and (6)

A review of such conclusion is subject to the substantial evidence rule. ... "The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6).

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to affirm an agency decision unless an identified error prejudices the appellant's substantial rights; the court applies a substantial evidence standard to the agency's factual findings.

Wasfi v. Department of Public Health, No. Cv960333778s (Oct. 19, 1998) · filed 1998-10-19(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) in part provides: The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: ... (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; ... There is substantial evidence to support the findings of the board as to the misdiagnosis of the dog Molly, the misinformation to Molly's owner of her condition and the misrepresentation of the treatment performed on her.

Section 4-183(j) requires courts reviewing agency fact findings to apply the substantial evidence standard without reweighing the evidence.

Senior v. St. of Ct., Dept. of So. Serv., No. Cv97 0402488 (Dec. 9, 1998) · filed 1998-12-09(j)

In any event, there is substantial evidence in the record which supports the hearing officer's conclusion that the plaintiff received AFDC benefits from October 20, 1969 until July 18, 1974 from the State of Connecticut in the amount of $10,681.38. "The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). ... Thus, the hearing officer's determination that the plaintiff had received AFDC benefits during the period in question, is fully supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) requires courts reviewing administrative findings to apply the substantial evidence standard, which asks whether the record provides a reasonable factual basis for the finding.

Unified School Dist. v. Department O. E., No. Cv 98 049 26 96 (Feb. 4, 1999) · filed 1999-02-04(j)(5) and (6)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. ... Here, the hearing officer's finding in that regard was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 4-183 bars a reviewing court from reweighing an agency’s factual findings and requires substantial evidence in the record to support them.

Local 1042 v. Norwalk Bd. of Ed., No. Cv98 0492623s (Mar. 11, 1999) · filed 1999-03-11(j)

The court's "review of an agency's factual determination is constrained by General Statutes § 4-183 (1), which mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. ... Thus, the record contains substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the May 1995 policy merely formalized a pre-existing notice policy.

Section 4-183 (j) (5) and (6) applies the substantial evidence rule to judicial review of agency factual findings.

Rivera v. Liquor Control Commission · filed 1999-05-04(j)(5) and (6)

Under § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6) of the UAPA, judicial review of administrative fact-finding is governed by the substantial evidence rule.

Section 4-183(j) prevents a reviewing court from reweighing an agency's factual findings and calls for substantial evidence review.

Vail v. Thomas, Commissioner Dss, No. Cv 98 0492634s (Jun. 22, 1999) · filed 1999-06-22(j)

The court's "review of an agency's factual determination is constrained by General Statutes § 4-183 (j), which mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. ... The court finds that substantial evidence in the record supports the BRS decision that the BA Engineering Degree from the University of Hartford was not an appropriate vocational goal for Mr. Vail.

Section 4-183(j) requires courts reviewing agency factual findings to defer to findings supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Allesandrine v. City of New Haven, No. Cv 98 0492620s (Jul. 7, 1999) · filed 1999-07-07(j)

The court's "review of an agency's factual determination is constrained by General Statutes § 4-183 (j), which mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. ... The Labor Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and it is affirmed.

Section 4-183(j) requires the court to review the board’s decision for substantial evidence in the record without reweighing the evidence.

Young v. New Haven Board of Education, No. Cv 98 040782 S (Jan. 15, 1999) · filed 1999-01-15(j)

The court's job is to apply the proper standard of review to the Board's decision and to determine if the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on the weight of factual evidence and requires substantial evidence review.

Tracey v. Commission on Human Rights, No. Cv 98-0411263s (Feb. 22, 1999) · filed 1999-02-22(j)

The plaintiff's evidentiary claims are determined in accordance with the substantial evidence rule. The court's "review of an agency's factual determination is constrained by General Statutes § 4-183 (j), which mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the CT Page 2292 agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency factfinding to whether the record contains substantial evidence supporting the agency’s findings.

Riggione v. Department of Consumer Prot., No. Cv 98 04926085 (Oct. 5, 1999) · filed 1999-10-05(j)(5) and (6)

As noted above, there was substantial evidence presented at the hearing to support the Commission's factual findings. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' argument must fail.

Section 4-183(j)(5) requires a court reviewing an agency's factual findings to apply the substantial evidence standard.

Anderson v. Department of Public Health, No. Cv 99 0494513s (Dec. 20, 1999) · filed 1999-12-20(j)(5)

The plaintiff argues that the DPH decision does not pass muster under General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5). ... Here, the substantial evidence rule fully supports the DPH determination that as a mandated reporter, the plaintiff had reasonable cause to suspect or believe that the children had been abused.

Section 4-183 requires courts reviewing administrative factfinding to defer to findings supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Downey v. Waterbury Retirement Board, No. Cv 97-0141774s (Feb. 23, 2000) · filed 2000-02-24

The `substantial evidence' rule governs judicial review of administrative factfinding under General Statutes § 4-183 . . . . An administrative finding is supported by `substantial evidence' if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred . . . Such a standard of review allows less room for judicial scrutiny than does the `weight of the evidence' rule or the `clearly erroneous' rule.

Section 4-183(j) limits review of agency factual findings to whether substantial evidence in the record supports them; the court does not reweigh contrary evidence.

MacDermid v. Environmental Prot. Dept., No. Cv 98-0492628s (Apr. 3, 2000) · filed 2000-04-03(j)

The review as to factual claims is only to determine if substantial evidence exists in the record to support the agency's findings. The existence in the record of contrary evidence is of little import.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court reviewing an agency’s factual findings to defer to the agency’s weighing of evidence and apply the substantial evidence standard.

Sticca v. Salinas, No. Cv 99 0494999s (Aug. 12, 1999) · filed 1999-08-12(j)

Such claims are governed by the substantial evidence rule. The court's "review of an agency's factual determination is constrained by General Statutes § 4-183 (j), which mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

Section 4-183(j)(5) requires an appellant to show that an agency decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Baylis v. Commissioner, No. Cv99 0498653s (Mar. 17, 2000) · filed 2000-03-17(j)(5)

To prevail, plaintiff must prove the decision to suspend his operator's license is "clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record." Connecticut General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5).

Section 4-183 requires substantial-evidence review of a CHRO merit assessment dismissal, even though the CHRO need not conduct a full investigation.

Prisley v. Commission on Human Rights, No. Cv 98 0087381 (Apr. 13, 2000) · filed 2000-04-13(j)(5) and (6)

Since the General Assembly did not, however, exempt such reasonable cause determination(s) from the operation of General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6), this court must still consider whether the [CHRO's] determination is supported by substantial evidence, while recognizing that full investigation is not required pursuant to the CT Page 3992 amendment allowing for a more summary procedure.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) applies the substantial evidence rule to judicial review of administrative factfinding, limiting courts’ power to overturn agency decisions.

Murphy v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2000-08-22(j)(5) and (6)

“The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. [See] General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6). An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. . . . The substantial evidence rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 281.

Section 4-183(j) requires a reviewing court to avoid substituting its judgment for an agency's on factual weight and to affirm unless substantial rights were prejudiced by specified errors, including clearly erroneous findings unsupported by the whole record.

Picard v. Departmet of Public Health, No. Cv 99 0498477s (Dec. 7, 2000) · filed 2000-12-07(j)

The court's "review of an agency's factual determination is constrained by General Statutes § 4-183 (j), which mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. . . ."

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on the weight of factual evidence, including witness credibility.

Towbin v. Board of Examiners of Psychs., No. Cv 98 0492718s (May 25, 2000) · filed 2000-05-25(j)

Plaintiffs claim that the Board erred in finding plaintiffs testimony is implausible has CT Page 6420 little merit because Connecticut General Statutes § 4-183 (j) clearly provides that the reviewing court "shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."

Section 4-183(j)(6) calls for deference to an agency’s construction of a statute it enforces, except when the issue is a pure question of law that has not been previously reviewed.

Reynolds v. Conn. Dept. of Social Serv., No. Cv99 0079927 S (Jun. 9, 2000) · filed 2000-06-09(j)(6)

As to questions of law, the Supreme Court has recently stated that the deferential standard does not apply to a court's review of an "agency's construction of a statute, which is a pure question of law, particularly when the question has not been subjected to prior judicial review." Connecticut Light Power Co. v. Texas-Ohio Power, Inc. , 243 Conn. 635 , 644 (1998). Otherwise, deference is accorded to the agency's construction of the statute it is empowered to enforce by applying subsection (6) of General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j) bars the court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on the weight of evidence concerning factual questions.

Hultman v. State, Dept. of Social Ser., No. Cv 99 0422879s (Jun. 21, 2001) · filed 2000-06-21(j)

Initially it is important to state the standard of review for appeals from administrative agencies. Connecticut General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides: "The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."

Section 4-183(j) requires courts reviewing administrative appeals to apply a restricted standard and uphold an agency decision supported by the evidence.

Vacon v. Board of Commissioners, No. Cv 99 0493909s (Jun. 26, 2000) · filed 2000-06-26(j)

The standard of review of these claims is identical to the standard of review in general for administrative appeals under General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183 limits judicial review of an administrative agency decision to whether the agency acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or abused its discretion.

Velez v. Dep. of Admin. Serv., No. Cv 990497016s (Jul. 10, 2000) · filed 2000-07-10

This court must review the actions of the agency under the test set forth in O'Callaghan v. Commissioner of Social Services , 53 Conn. App. 191 , 203 (1999): Judicial review of the decision of an administrative agency is limited. . . . [W]e must decide, in view of all the evidence, whether the agency, in issuing its order, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or illegally, or abused its discretion. . . .

Section 4-183(j)(5) requires the court to affirm an agency decision unless the appellant's substantial rights were prejudiced by findings that are clearly erroneous in view of the record.

Cetnarowski v. Ferris, No. Cv 99 0498515s (Jul. 20, 2000) · filed 2000-07-20(j)(5)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) mandates that a court "shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. . . ."

Section 4-183 places the burden on an administrative appellant to show that the agency decision was clearly erroneous in light of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Vasone v. Salinas, No. Cv 00 0501228s (Sep. 26, 2000) · filed 2000-09-26

The plaintiff is aggrieved by such decision and brings this appeal pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act ("UAPA"), General Statutes § 4-183 . ... In this type of an administrative appeal to this court, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the DMV's decision to suspend a motor vehicle operators license was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Section 4-183(j)(6) limits judicial review of agency discretion to decisions that are arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion.

Wasfi v. Department of Public Health · filed 2000-11-21(j)(6)

Our statutes dictate that matters under an agency’s discretionary review must not be “arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion . . . .” General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (6).

Section 4-183(j) requires the reviewing court to defer to the agency on factual weight and affirm unless substantial rights were prejudiced by a clearly erroneous decision on the whole record.

Tompkins v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2000-11-28(j)

Pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, General Statutes § 4-166 et seq., the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the commissioner and must affirm the commissioner’s decision unless it is “clearly erroneous in view of the rehable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record . . . .” General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(c) limits judicial review by barring substitution of the court's judgment and requiring affirmance unless the agency decision is clearly erroneous on the whole record.

Lomen v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2000-12-26(c)

Pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, General Statutes § 4-166 et seq., the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the commissioner and must affirm his decision unless it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. General Statutes § 4-183 ©.

Section 4-183(j) provides the standard for highly deferential judicial review of an administrative agency's decision.

Skindzier v. Commissioner of Social Services, No. 0501376 (Jan. 4, 2001) · filed 2001-01-04(j)

The court's review of the decision of an administrative agency is highly deferential. Neri v. Powers , 3 Conn. App. 531 , 537 , 490 A.2d 528 (1985); see also General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s judgment on the weight of evidence in factual questions.

Hultman v. Department of Social Services · filed 2000-06-21(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides in pertinent part: “The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”

Section 4-183(j) bars the court from substituting its judgment for the agency’s judgment on the weight of evidence concerning factual questions.

Hultman v. State Dept. of Social Ser., No. Cv 990422879s (Jun. 21, 2000) · filed 2000-06-21(j)

Connecticut General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides: "The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Mosher v. Kozlowski · filed 2000-10-17(j)

The trial court, therefore, improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the commissioner with respect to a question of fact.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) require the court to use the substantial evidence rule when reviewing an agency's factual findings.

Cadlerock Properties Joint Venture, L.P. v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection · filed 2000-07-18(j)(5) and (6)

“The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6).”

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing an agency’s factual findings and requires substantial evidence review.

Pratt and whitney/united Tech. v. Chro, No. Cv 99 0498805s (Feb. 20, 2001) · filed 2001-02-20(j)

In evaluating these claims the court is guided by the substantial evidence test. The court's "review of an agency's factual determination is constrained by General Statutes § 4-183 (j), which mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) governs substantial evidence review of agency findings: the record must provide a substantial basis from which the findings can reasonably be inferred.

Bard v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2001-02-27(j)(5) and (6)

“The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. [See] General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6). An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. . . . The substantial evidence rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency . . . .”

Section 4-183(j) requires courts reviewing agency factfinding to apply the substantial evidence standard.

Simard v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2001-04-10(j)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative [fact-finding] under General Statutes [§ 4-183 (j)]. ... We conclude that the administrative record contains substantial evidence to support the commissioner’s suspension of the plaintiffs motor vehicle operator’s license.

Section 4-183(j)(5) permits a court to sustain an administrative appeal when an agency decision prejudices substantial rights and is clearly erroneous in view of the substantial evidence in the record.

Slootskin v. Commission on Human Rights, No. Cv 99-0504231s (Apr. 11, 2001) · filed 2001-04-11(j)(5)

The court finds that substantial rights of the plaintiffs have been prejudiced because the CHO's administrative conclusions as to damages and ... resulting decision are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of the entire record. Accordingly, the appeal is sustained with respect to this particular issue.

Section 4-183(j)(5) requires a court reviewing agency factfinding to determine whether substantial evidence in the record supports the findings.

Stahl v. Wilson-Coker, No. Cv 01 0506667s (Apr. 27, 2001) · filed 2001-04-27(j)(5)

The court, having searched the entire record, finds that there exists substantial evidence to support the FHO's findings of fact and conclusions.

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to affirm an agency ruling when substantial evidence in the administrative record supports its findings.

Abington Cons. v. Dpt. of Consumer Prot., No. Cv 00 0503420 S (May 22, 2001) · filed 2001-05-22(j)

For all of the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the Boards' revised ruling does not violate constitutionally guaranteed rights to equal protection of the law and is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) require a court to review whether substantial evidence supports a CHRO merit assessment dismissal, even though a full investigation is not required.

Rainey v. Fairfield Board of Education, No. Cv 00 0501934s (Jun. 19, 2001) · filed 2001-06-19(j)(5) and (6)

Since the General Assembly did not, however, exempt such reasonable cause determination (s) from the operation of General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6), this court must still consider whether the [CHRO's] determination is supported by substantial evidence, while recognizing that full investigation is not required pursuant to the amendment allowing for a more summary procedure.

Section 4-183(j)(5) bars a reviewing court from reweighing evidence and requires it to uphold agency fact findings supported by substantial evidence.

Szewczyk v. State Department, Social S., No. Cv 00 0501046s (Jun. 28, 2001) · filed 2001-06-28(j)(5)

There is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the hearing officer's factual findings and conclusions of law. Based on the foregoing, the plaintiffs appeal is therefore dismissed.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) requires courts reviewing agency fact-finding to uphold findings supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

Unified School District No. 1 v. Connecticut Department of Education · filed 2001-07-17(j)(5), (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6). An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.

Section 4-183(j)(5) requires courts reviewing agency fact findings to defer to the agency’s weighing of evidence and uphold findings supported by substantial evidence.

Locke v. State, Dept. of Public Health, No. Cv 00 0499998s (Jan. 9, 2001) · filed 2001-01-09(j)(5)

Specifically, General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. ... This court follows the Salmon analysis and finds that there is substantial evidence of record to support the hearing officer's conclusions.

Section 4-183(j) requires a reviewing court to affirm an agency decision unless it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the whole record.

Dore v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2001-04-03(j)

Pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, General Statutes § 4-166 et seq., the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the commissioner and must affirm the commissioner’s decision unless it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record .... General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j)(5) bars a reviewing court from reweighing an agency's factual findings and calls for deferential substantial evidence review.

Commission on Human Rt. v. Chro., No. Cv 00 0500563s (Apr. 25, 2001) · filed 2001-04-25(j)(5)

Specifically, General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. ... While the CHRO argues that the job study may be read to discuss "effort," the court under the "highly deferential" standard of review, approves the conclusion of the referee.

Section 4-183(j) permits broader judicial review of a first-impression question of law, without the special deference ordinarily given to an agency.

Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission Et Al. · filed 2001-04-30(j)

This appears to be a matter of first impression. As such, the standard of review is broadened and the special deference ordinarily given to administrative agencies gives way to an analysis of the governing principles of law.

Section 4-183(j)(5) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency’s on the weight of factual evidence.

International Data v. Commission on Human, No. Cv 00 0503421 (Jul. 20, 2001) · filed 2001-07-20(j)(5)

Specifically, General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court reviewing agency fact findings to determine whether substantial evidence in the whole record reasonably supports them.

Rocque v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 2001-04-10(j)

The appropriate standard of judicial review, therefore, is whether the commission’s factual determinations are reasonably supported by substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole.

Section 4-183(j)(5) requires a court reviewing agency factfinding to defer to supported findings and the agency's credibility determinations.

Nunez v. Garcia, No. Cv 00 0504460s (May 2, 2001) · filed 2001-05-02(j)(5)

As indicated in Salmon , the trial court may not reject the hearing officer's findings of fact unless a finding is clearly erroneous, and must not substitute its judgment for the hearing officer's on the credibility of witnesses.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) governs judicial review of agency factual findings under the substantial evidence rule.

MacDermid, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2001-07-31(j)(5) and (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6).

Section 4-183(j) requires the court to review agency factual findings for substantial evidence in the administrative record.

Ferrer v. State, Dept. of Social Services, No. Cv 01 0507765s (Aug. 6, 2001) · filed 2001-08-06(j)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). ... The court has determined that the administrative record contains substantial evidence in support of the FHO's factual findings and conclusions that a September 29, 1999 application was not filed with DSS.

Section 4-183(j)(5) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on the weight of factual evidence and requires substantial evidence review.

Norwalk Board of Education v. State, Chro, No. Cv 00 0505526 (Sep. 28, 2001) · filed 2001-09-28(j)(5)

The court reviews the plaintiff's claims on this appeal under the substantial evidence test. ... Specifically, General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. ... Since the finding of pretext is supported by substantial evidence, the court may defer to the hearing officer's conclusion 6 that Saunders met his burden of proof that the plaintiff was liable for race, age and color discrimination against Saunders.

Section 4-183(j) requires courts reviewing agency factfinding to apply the substantial evidence standard.

Elf v. Department of Public Health · filed 2001-10-23(j)(5) and (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6).

Section 4-183(j)(5) guides courts reviewing agency decisions under the substantial evidence rule.

Williams v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 2001-12-18(j)(5)

The Uniform Administrative Procedure Act and General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) provide additional guidance concerning the proper standard of review and the substantial evidence rule concerning administrative decisions.

Section 4-183(j) applies the substantial evidence rule to judicial review of administrative factfinding.

Braver v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2001-11-13(j)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative [fact-finding] under General Statutes [§ 4-183 (j)].

Section 4-183(j)(5) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on the weight of evidence concerning factual questions.

Commission on H. Rights, Opp. v. Wal-Mart, No. Cv 01 0507207s (Jan. 2, 2002) · filed 2002-01-02(j)(5)

Specifically, General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(5) mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

An appellant must show that an agency decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole record.

Funderburk v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2002-03-19(j)(5)

The plaintiff must prove that the commissioner’s decision to suspend his operator’s license was “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record . . . .” ... After reviewing the record and briefs before us, we conclude that the commissioner’s decision to suspend the plaintiffs operator’s license was not clearly erroneous and was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Conn. Nat. Gas v. Conn. Dep. Pub. Util., No. Cv 01-0511152 S (Apr. 19, 2002) · filed 2002-04-19(j)

The plaintiff essentially asks this court to substitute its judgment for that of the department in an area in which the department has considerable discretion and expertise. This the court cannot do. See Connecticut Natural Gas Corp. v. Public Utilities Control Authority, 183 Conn. 128 , 137 , 439 A.2d 282 (1981); General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j)(5) requires courts to review agency factual findings under the substantial evidence standard without reweighing the evidence.

Modwadia v. Garcia, No. Cv 00 0502892s (Dec. 4, 2001) · filed 2001-12-04(j)(5)

Under the substantial evidence test, this is enough to sustain the hearing officer's factual conclusions.

Section 4-183(j) requires courts reviewing agency fact finding to apply the substantial evidence standard.

Towbin v. Board of Examiners of Psychologists · filed 2002-07-23(j)(5) and (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6).

Section 4-183(j)(5) requires a court reviewing agency factfinding to apply the substantial evidence standard without reweighing the evidence.

Mohican Valley Concrete Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals · filed 2003-02-11(j)(5)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) defines the scope of judicial review of an administrative agency’s action. A court “shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the rehable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record . . . .”

Section 4-183(j) subjects judicial review of administrative fact finding to the substantial evidence rule.

Sanseverino v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2003-10-14(j)

Judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA is governed by the substantial evidence rule. Dolgner v. Alander, supra, 237 Conn. 281; see also General Statutes § 4-183 (j). ... The record here contains substantial evidence from which the hearing officer could have found that the plaintiff had refused to submit to the second and third breath tests.

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to uphold an agency decision when substantial evidence supports its factual findings and its conclusions are reasonable.

Good v. Connecticut Dss, No. Cv 01-0511771s (Jul. 10, 2002) · filed 2002-07-10(j)

Based on that review, the court concludes that there was "substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency's findings of basic fact and [that] the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Schallenkamp v. DelPonte , 229 Conn. 31 , 40 , 639 A.2d 1018 (1994). This conclusion satisfies the standard of review under the UAPA. Id., 39-40; General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) calls for deferential substantial evidence review of an agency’s factual findings.

Connecticut Light Power Co. v. Dpuc, No. Cv-01-0510850s (Jul. 30, 2002) · filed 2002-07-30(j)(5) and (6)

As previously noted, the court reviews the department's factual findings pursuant to the highly deferential "substantial evidence" standard. ... There is substantial evidence in the record to support the department's finding that the internal labor costs incurred in the present transaction were recovered by the company in rates.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency decisions to specified errors and requires the court to affirm when the decision is supported by the record.

Bridges v. Wilson-Coker, No. Cv01-0509836s (Sep. 3, 2002) · filed 2002-09-03(j)

From the record and the hearing's officer's decision, the court concludes that the department's actions were not arbitrary or capricious and were amply supported by the reliable evidence in the record. Connecticut General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) require courts to review agency fact findings under the substantial evidence standard, rather than the clearly erroneous standard.

United Technologies Corp./Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 2002-09-10(j)(5), (j)(6)

Despite the defendant’s framing of the issue, we have noted previously that the substantial evidence rule, and not the clearly erroneous standard, governs our review of an agency’s findings of fact.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency factfinding but permits a court to set aside an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence or is unreasonable, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion.

Rya Corp. v. Enfield Pzc, No. Cv-01-0805349s (Jan. 16, 2003) · filed 2003-01-16(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. . . . The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." ... The court has reviewed the return of Record, Supplemental Return of Record, briefs and arguments of counsel and finds that the Commission did act unreasonably, arbitrarily and or in abuse of its discretion and sustains the appeal.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on the weight of factual evidence.

Board of Education v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 2003-10-28(j)

Our review of an agency’s factual determination is constrained by General Statutes § 4-183 (j), which mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency’s on the weight of factual evidence.

Little City Caf&201 v. Dept. of Cons. Pro., No. Cv 02-0512908 S (Jul. 11, 2002) · filed 2002-07-11(j)

The court "shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to sustain an administrative appeal when the agency’s decision lacks substantial evidence.

Lovan C. v. Department of Children & Families · filed 2004-12-07(j)

Therefore, we conclude that the substantiation must be reversed for lack of substantial evidence that the plaintiffs discipline was unreasonable.

Section 4-183(j) requires courts to review agency fact findings under the substantial evidence standard.

Sengchanthong v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2005-11-22(j)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. See General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6).

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) requires courts reviewing agency fact-finding to apply the substantial evidence standard.

Jim's Auto Body v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2008-03-11(j)(5) and (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. [See] General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6). An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.

Substantial evidence review under § 4-183(j)(5) and (6) does not require a particular type of evidence to support an agency finding.

Goldstar Medical Services, Inc. v. Department of Social Services · filed 2008-09-23(j)(5) and (6)

It is not the function of an appellate court to insist that one particular type of evidence be presented before finding substantial evidence to be present.

Section 4-183(j) permits plenary review of an agency’s interpretation of a legal question that has not previously received judicial scrutiny.

Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission · filed 2005-12-27(j)

Judicial review of an administrative agency’s action is governed by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, General Statutes § 4-166 et seq. See General Statutes § 4-183 (j). ... Concededly, the construction and application of §§ 5-162 (b) and 5-154 (h) present issues of law not heretofore considered by the courts. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to plenary review of the claims they raised at trial.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to affirm an agency decision unless it finds a specified ground for reversal, including legal error or abuse of discretion.

Corcoran v. Connecticut Siting Council · filed 2006-01-26(j)

A court shall affirm the decision of an agency unless the court finds that the agency’s decisions are in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, in excess of the statutory authority of the agency, clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantive evidence of the whole record, or arbitrary, capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(g) provides a deferential standard for reviewing utility rate orders while requiring meaningful scrutiny of agency decisions.

Office of Consumer Counsel v. Department of Public Utility Control · filed 2006-08-22(g)

Section 4-183 (g) coupled with the presumption of validity that attends a . . . rate order . . . establishes a standard for judicial review that is appropriately deferential to agency decisionmaking, yet goes beyond a mere judicial rubber stamping of an agency’s decisions.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency decisions and calls for deference when substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision.

Lawendy v. Connecticut Board of Veterinary Medicine · filed 2008-07-15(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) governs appellate review of agency decisions. “[W]e note that our review of an administrative appeal is limited. Our Supreme Court has established a firm standard that is appropriately deferential to agency decision making, yet goes beyond a mere judicial rubber stamping of an agency’s decisions. . . . Courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the agency where substantial evidence exists on the record to support the agency’s decision, and where the record reflects that the agency followed appropriate procedures.”

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) governs substantial evidence review of administrative fact findings; a finding is supported when the record provides a substantial factual basis for it.

Council 4, AFSCME v. State Board of Labor Relations · filed 2008-12-23(j)(5) and (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. [See] General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6). An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.

Section 4-183(j) governs judicial review of agency fact-finding under the substantial evidence rule.

Finley v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2009-03-31(j)(5), (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. [See] General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6). ... We conclude, therefore, that the administrative record contained substantial evidence supporting the commissioner’s finding that the plaintiff was the operator of the vehicle at issue.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) requires courts reviewing agency findings to determine whether the administrative record provides substantial evidence to support them.

Prioleau v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 2009-09-01(j)(5) and (6)

This so-called substantial evidence rule is similar to the sufficiency of the evidence standard applied in judicial review of jury verdicts, and evidence is sufficient to sustain an agency finding if it affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. ... This substantial evidence rule is embodied in General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6).

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) requires substantial evidence review of administrative fact finding.

HOGBERG v. Department of Social Services · filed 2010-09-07(j)(5) and (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6).

Section 4-183(j) requires courts reviewing agency fact findings to apply the substantial evidence standard.

Spitz v. Board of Examiners of Psychologists · filed 2011-03-08(j)(5) and (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6). ... The plaintiffs claim fails because there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board’s conclusion that he engaged in a sexual relationship with L.B. in violation of the APA ethical code.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) governs judicial review of agency fact-finding under the substantial evidence rule.

Conee v. Department of Social Services · filed 2013-06-10(j)(5) and (6)

The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA, General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6). ... The court finds that there is substantial evidence to support this calculation.

Section 4-183(j) requires a reviewing court to sustain an agency’s factual finding when substantial evidence in the record supports it.

Gonzalez v. State Elections Enforcement Commission · filed 2013-09-10(j)

On the basis of our review of the record, including the testimony of Barry and the plaintiff as well as the November 27, 2006 letter from the plaintiff, there was substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s finding of a violation of § 9-140b (e) with respect to Raul Rivera and Jennie Rivera.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing evidence and requires it to uphold agency factual findings supported by substantial evidence.

Zanard-Kloth v. Department of Social Services · filed 2014-03-20(j)

[This court’s] review ... of an agency’s factual determination is constrained by General Statutes § 4-183 (j), which mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. ... Thus, there was substantial evidence in the record to support DSS’s conclusion that she was liable to the State for unreim-bursed public assistance.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on the weight of factual evidence.

Lucarelli v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 2012-05-29(j)

Our review of an agency’s factual determination is constrained by General Statutes § 4-183 (j), which mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) applies the substantial evidence rule to judicial review of agency fact findings.

Prendergast. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2017-04-25(j)(5) and (6)

‘‘The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the [act]. [See] General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6). An admin- istrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.

Section 4-183(j)(5) and (6) requires courts reviewing agency fact finding to apply the substantial evidence standard.

Lawrence v. Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection · filed 2017-12-12(j)(5) and (6)

‘‘[t]he substantial evidence rule governs judi- cial review of administrative fact-finding under [the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act]. General Stat- utes § 4-183 (j) (5) and (6).

Section 4-183(j)(5) requires an appellant challenging an agency’s factual finding to show that it is clearly erroneous in light of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole record.

Nandabalan v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2021-05-04(j)(5)

The totality of the evidence, including the police report, the A-44 form, the Breathalyzer test strip, and the testimony of Officer Sadiev and the plaintiff, provides reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that the plaintiff refused to submit to a breath test. The plaintiff has not met his burden of proving that the hearing officer erred in concluding that there existed sufficient evidence of refusal.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court reviewing an agency decision to apply the substantial evidence standard without substituting its judgment for the agency’s findings of fact.

Nutmeg State Crematorium, LLC v. Dept. of Energy & Enviromental Protection · filed 2022-02-01(j)

The plaintiffs’ final claim on appeal is that the court erred by violating binding legal precedent and § 4-183 (j). ... The court properly applied the substantial evidence standard in its review of the commissioner’s decision. The plaintiffs claim that the court substituted its own judgment by ‘‘eschewing the expert opinions of every engineer that testified in this case’’; however, that assertion is simply unsupported by the record.

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when specified errors prejudice an appellant’s substantial rights.

Nussbaum v. Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection · filed 2021-08-17(j)

Judicial review of an administrative decision is a creature of statute . . . and [§ 4-183 (j)] permits modification or reversal of an agency’s decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative find- ings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) [i]n violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error or law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Section 4-183(j) prohibits a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on the weight of factual evidence.

Hartford v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 2021-11-23(j)

‘‘Our review of an agency’s factual determination is constrained by General Statutes § 4-183 (j), which man- dates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

Section 4-183 (j) bars a reviewing court from reweighing an agency’s factual findings and requires it to sustain findings reasonably supported by substantial evidence.

HARTFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES ET AL. (SC 20669) · filed 2023-07-18(j)

Our review of an agency’s factual determination is constrained by General Statutes § 4-183 (j), which mandates that a court shall not substitute its judgment for ... that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to affirm an agency decision unless an agency error prejudiced the appellant’s substantial rights, including through arbitrary or capricious action.

Woodbridge Newton Neighborhood Environmental Trust v. Connecticut Siting Council · filed 2024-07-05(j)

‘‘The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. . . .’’

Section 4-183(j) requires courts reviewing an agency’s factual findings to uphold them unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence.

United Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority · filed 2024-10-29(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j). The trial court concluded, and we agree, that the plaintiff’s challenges are, in essence, factual disputes and, therefore, that we must uphold PURA’s decision unless we determine that its findings are clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 4-183(b) imposes a forty-five-day deadline for appeals from administrative decisions to Connecticut Superior Court.

Flavin v. Connecticut State Board of Education · filed 1982-12-27(b)

In addition, the first count of the complaint is based entirely on Conn.Gen. Stat. §§ 10-76a — 10-76h, and the applicable statute of limitations for such an appeal is clearly the forty-five day limitation period contained in Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4 — 183(b).

Section 4-183(b)’s forty-five-day period for seeking judicial review begins when the agency mails notice of its final decision, even if the recipient does not claim the letter.

Rogers v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1985-03-26(b)

We hold that the appeal period began to run on February 25,1982, and therefore we need not consider the relevance of the other dates.

When an agency sends a suspension notice identifying an attached decision as its notice of decision, the recipient may reasonably treat that communication as the notice that starts the appeal period under § 4-183 (b).

Lynch v. Muzio · filed 1987-06-09(b)

Consistent with this policy, we conclude that, when the plaintiff received the notice of suspension to which the “notice of decision” purportedly was attached in compliance with the UAPA, he could reasonably have regarded that communication as the “notice of the final decision of the agency” referred to by § 4-183 (b), the mailing of which starts the time for an appeal.

Section 4-183 (b) allows a timely administrative appeal to remain before the Superior Court when a different party later files a petition for rehearing.

Miko v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1991-08-20(b)

Where the legislature has granted the Superior Court jurisdiction over timely appeals from final decisions of administrative agencies under § 4-183, a subsequent petition for rehearing, however timely, filed by a different party, does not terminate the court’s jurisdiction.

Section 4-183 requires an appeal to be brought within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed.

Flynn v. Bloomfield Inld. Wetl./wtrcrs., No. Cv 37 13 63 (Aug. 21, 1991) · filed 1991-08-21

General Statutes Section 4-183 requires an appeal to be brought within forty-five days of the mailing of the final decision.

Section 4-183(c) requires an appeal within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed or personally delivered; an untimely appellant may not seek to set aside or modify the order.

Commission on Hum. Rights v. Local 536, No. Cv90 0378941 (Nov. 19, 1991) · filed 1991-11-19(c)

General Statutes Section 4-183 (c) requires that a party commence an appeal "[w]ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision under section 4-180 or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision under said section . . . ." Although the court file I does not indicate on which date defendant received notice of the Hearing Officer's order, it does indicate that the order was dated December 20, 1989 and the present action, which was brought pursuant to General Statutes Section 46a-95 , was commenced more than five months after that date. Construing the facts of the complaint most favorable to the nonmoving party, the defendant failed to commence an appeal within the statutory time period and, therefore, may not seek to set aside or modify the Hearing Officer's order.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appellant to serve the agency and file the appeal in court within forty-five days after the decision is mailed or personally delivered.

Gally v. Delponte, No. 44598 (Dec. 16, 1991) · filed 1991-12-16(c)

A party appealing the decision of an administrative agency must serve the appeal on the agency that rendered the decision and file the appeal with the clerk of the court within forty-five (45) days of the mailing or personal delivery of the agency decision. General Statutes Section 4-183 (c). In the present action, the decision by the Department of Motor Vehicles was rendered on March 10, 1990, the appeal was served upon the agency on April 4, 1990, and the appeal was filed on April 6, 1990. Therefore, CT Page 10376 plaintiff's appeal is timely under General Statutes Section 4-183 .

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed with the Superior Court clerk within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; an untimely filing deprives the court of jurisdiction.

Lawrence Memorial Hosp. v. East Lyme, No. 52 28 97 (Oct. 23, 1992) · filed 1992-10-23(c)

The appeal later filed on May 19, 1992 with the required entry fee was not within the forty-five days mandated by General Statutes Section 4-183 (c), and therefore is untimely. The words "strict compliance" mean strict compliance, and the plaintiff's untimely filing of its appeal did not strictly comply with the statute and thus deprived this court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 4-183(a) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; a late filing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Copeland v. Dept. of Liquor Control, No. Cv93 006 27 91 (May 3, 1994) · filed 1994-05-03(a)

Failure to file an appeal within the forty-five day time period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 4-183(a) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed, or personally delivered if it is not mailed; late filing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Leonard v. Comm'r of Consumer Protection, No. Cv94 053 50 24 (May 3, 1994) · filed 1994-05-03(a)

General Statutes § 4-183 (a) provides that an appeal of an administrative decision must be served on all parties of record and filed in the superior court "(w)ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision . . . or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision under (§ 4-180 )." ... Since the appeal was not filed in court within the forty-five day time period prescribed by statute, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Under the 1987 version of § 4-183(b), an appellant had to file within forty-five days and serve the agency and all parties listed in the decision within thirty days of the final decision’s mailing.

Greater Bridgeport Transit District v. State Board of Labor Relations · filed 1993-08-05(b)

A party taking an appeal must do so by filing it with the Superior Court within forty-five days of the mailing of the final decision and serving the agency that rendered the final decision and all parties listed in the final decision within thirty days of the mailing of the final decision. General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) § 4-183 (b). ... The appeal, therefore, is timely.

Section 4-183(c)’s 45-day period for appealing an agency decision begins when the final decision is mailed, not when it is received.

Wills v. Ferrandino · filed 1993-08-13(c)

The statute, on its face, contemplates that the 45-day limitations period within which a plaintiff may appeal an administrative decision is triggered by the mailing of the final decision.

Section 4-183(c) allows a person to appeal an agency’s final decision within forty-five days after it is mailed.

Walling v. State Department of Motor Vehicles, No. 113831 (May 24, 1994) · filed 1994-05-24(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides that a person may appeal a final decision of an agency within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed. In the present case, the final decision was rendered on January 30, 1993. The plaintiff filed this appeal on February 23, 1993. The defendant was served on February 25, 1993. Consequently, the plaintiff has filed this action within the time limit prescribed by General Statutes § 4-183 (c).

Section 4-183(a) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed or, if not mailed, delivered; a late filing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

A.M.C.A., New Haven v. Liquor Control, No. Cv 93 035 27 10 (May 31, 1994) · filed 1994-05-31(a)

The court finds that the appeal was not filed within forty-five days after the mailing of the final decision, or if it was not mailed, within forty-five days after it was delivered to the plaintiff. Accordingly the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under § 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed.

Dadiskos v. Conn. Real Estate Comm., No. Cv 93 052 05 99 S (Aug. 10, 1993) · filed 1993-08-06(c)

This means that the plaintiff filed her appeal in this court on the fifty-first day after the mailing of the decision, which, of course, is in violation of the time limit prescribed by General Statutes § 4-183 (c).

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed and served within forty-five days; late filing deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Ass'n v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1993-11-16(c)

The plain language of § 4-183 (c), read in the light of ordinary rules of English grammar and sentence structure, compels the conclusion that both the filing and the service of the appeal must be accomplished within the forty-five day period. ... The legislature intended the forty-five day time limitation for filing of an appeal under the UAPA to remain a prerequisite to subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be served on the agency and filed in Superior Court within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed.

Singer v. State Employees Retirement Comm'n, No. 51 89 55 (Jun. 22, 1994) · filed 1994-06-22(c)

Within forty-five days after mailing of the final decision a person appealing shall serve a copy of the appeal on the agency that rendered the final decision at its office and file the appeal with the clerk of the superior court for the judicial district wherein the person appealing resides . . . . General Statutes § 4-183 (c). As noted above, the Commission's decision was dated May 16, 1991. The plaintiff filed his appeal on June 7, 1991 and certifies that a copy of said appeal was mailed on June 4, 1991, postage prepaid, certified mail, to the office of the Commission. The appeal is found to be timely.

Section 4-183(a) requires an administrative appeal to be filed in Superior Court within 45 days after the final decision is mailed; timely service and lack of prejudice do not cure a late filing.

Butler v. State Employees Ret. Comm., No. Cv 94 053 77 23 (Aug. 2, 1994) · filed 1994-08-02(a)

In a case where the appeal is not timely filed, however, lack of prejudice to the defendant agency is not relevant to the question of the court's jurisdiction. ... In accordance with the authorities cited above, the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Section 4-183(a) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; a late filing deprives the Superior Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Office of Consumer C. v. Dept./pub. Ut., No. Cv 94 054 18 34 (Dec. 19, 1994) · filed 1994-12-19(a)

General Statutes § 4-183 (a) provides that an appeal of an administrative decision must be served on all parties of record and filed in the superior court "(w)ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision . . . or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision under (§ 4-180 )." Failure to file an appeal within the forty-five day time period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 4-183(c) requires an appeal to be served and filed within forty-five days after the agency mails its final decision.

Salmon v. Rowe, No. Cv 93 532022 S (Sep. 6, 1994) · filed 1994-09-06(c)

Pursuant to § 4-183 (c), the plaintiff must serve and file her appeal within forty-five days of the mailing of the hearing officer's final decision. ... Since the plaintiff's appeal was both served and filed within forty five days of the mailing of the hearing officer's decision, the Court finds the plaintiff's appeal was timely filed.

Section 4-183(c)'s 45-day appeal period ran from the agency's stated final decision denying reconsideration, even though the agency considered the reconsideration request untimely.

Hackett v. Commission on Human Rights Opport., No. 0122312 (Dec. 13, 1994) · filed 1994-12-13(c)

Although noncompliance with General Statutes § 46a-83 (c) may be a valid ground for the defendant to deny the request for reconsideration and dismiss the plaintiff's complaint before it, such noncompliance is not a ground for the court to dismiss an appeal filed in accordance with General Statutes § 46a-94a and General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183(c)'s forty-five day appeal period begins when the agency mails its final decision.

Apricots v. Comm./human R., No. Cv930704762 (Dec. 19, 1994) · filed 1994-12-19(c)

This rule dictates the conclusion that the mailing of the final decision in this case, within the meaning of § 4-183 (c), was on September 27, 1993, thereby preserving the court's jurisdiction.